[This posting was inspired by a very appealing remark on the blog of frumactress (here: http://frumactress.blogspot.com/ dated December 31st.
I discovered her blog by clicking while reading the comments on a fragrant posting of Jameel, whose blog is here: http://muqata.blogspot.com/ (check out his cool new banner!).]
Every time Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is quoted, I almost automatically think of Din Rodef - the obligation to kill a person who imperils the life or property of another person.
Regarding Din Rodef, this: Tractate Sanhedrin, 73a: "And these are the ones whom one must save even with their lives: one who pursues his brother to kill him(rodef achar chaveiro le-hargo), and after a male or a betrothed maiden to rape them."
Al pi Rambam "When one pursues another to kill him, every Jew is commanded to save the victim from the attacker, even at the cost of the attacker’s life" (Mishne Torah, Murderers and Preserving Life, 1:1).
Note two things:
One - the textual implication is that both pursuer and victim are Jewish - but it is further said that animals who pursue are also to be killed. So it applies to anyone. And by the same token, also if a Gentile is being pursued - the rabbonim were obsessed with Jews, naturally, and wrote at a time when there just weren't many Gentiles waltzing around the holy land.
The other thing is that one must be careful thinking about such a solution when there is no immediate threat - saying "he will kill someone in the next ten years" is scant justification. The threat must be such that inaction means murder.
That being said, there are several practical arguments for eradicating Mr. Ahmedinejad. And I personally would cheer his demise.
Can you, dear reader, think of any reason not to whack him?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
THE ADDENDUM AT TEA
Tea time, as regular readers know, is very important to me. But instead of going to one of my regular places I gave it a miss today. I just ...
8 comments:
Gee, I don't know...perhaps because you'll come across as being as much of a whack job as Pat Robertson did when he advocated assassinating Hugo Chavez? Seriously, when the discussion turns to eliminating heads of sovereign states, we are treading on some thin, slippery ice.
Oh honestly - do you think most people who read this blog for the first time do not already think of me as a whack-job?
Assassination is as valid a means of affecting politics and effecting results as any other.
Sun-tzu argues as much in The Art Of War. And since that time, little has changed.
If the Russians can whack their dissidents, albeit as a warning to others, surely other countries can whack as well?
The question is really whether it would be constructive to whack certain international figures, or counter-productive.
Nope, not really. Depends who is below him, and who does it, though.
None whatsoever!!! Just added you to my blogroll.
I don't like when anyone dies, But I wont mind making very certain I'm in another room while it's accomplished. ;-)
If we are lucky he'll fall down the stairs and break his neck.
The only reason I can possibly think of is that it would cause us to divert back to a 50's mentality: if we don't like the leader, let's whack him. That wouldn't necessarily be all that bad, because we would do more things we would like to do but don't, but God only knows what other bs would come along with it.
I prefer Yakov's multifaceted approach.
Prayer, bribes, and if those fail, then whack him (er...then try the "military solution")
Post a Comment